23 Jul Villages Developer presents VCDD’s an offer they should refuse
For years, the Developer turned a blind eye regarding the age of their buyers. Their focus was simply, sell more houses and increase profits.
This is evidenced by all the more recent development south of 44. We all know that many buyers were younger than 55. Many became landlords with the intent on eventually retiring here. As younger landlords, they in turn rent to whoever a good paying customer might be, regardless of age.
I have no issue with any of the above by the way.
Yet, in parallel, they enacted bylaws stating at least one person in the home must be age 55 or older.
Now they are looking for a bad cop to enforce their age restriction policy
Recently, the Developer has approached the Community Development Districts (CDDs) about taking on the responsibility of enforcing their age restriction policies. You can read more on that HERE.
While our bylaws clearly state it in our deeds, no one could tell me how they ‘track’, let alone enforce this policy when I questioned local authorities a year ago. They could only say there is also an 80/20 rule that states 80% of the units must have someone over age 55. So how do they track the other 20% and ensure that ratio stays balanced? Again, no one could tell me.
One person in authority was kind enough to share candidly that the age restriction rule is typically only enforced when a neighborhood complaint about a rowdy resident reveals they are under 55. Then they lean on the rule and enforce the policy on a case-by-case basis.
What about our most vulnerable and underserved long-time residents?
My inquiry was based on a very personal situation. I have a 39-year-old special needs son who lives with us full-time. There are many dozens of families like ours who live in The Villages, perhaps as many as 150-200. As aging parents and full-time caregivers, our worries are 7×24; where will our son or daughter live when we are dead or can no longer care for them?
After all, there are many assisted living and nursing type facilities in The Villages that offer mainstream seniors’ opportunity to remain locally under long term care. For our special needs adult children, there are ZERO options available.
Left without options, some special needs families are planning to have their adult child remain in the home, with in-home services providing proper care and ensuring safety. Some of these “kids” will be +55 when that happens; many won’t. Will the CDD be knocking on their door to remove them from their home? I think the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) might have something to say about that.
In summary
The CDDs should steer clear of this so-called “opportunity.” Let them (the Developer) deal with these unintended consequences. By trying to dump this issue off on the CDDs, they sure opened a can of worms. And now they are exposed.
Mike Koss – Village of Collier